originally posted by: chr0naut
Sure, the images can be tampered with, but due to the multiplicity of images and the way they tend to cross verify each other, it is far easier to
tamper with the server.

And Crowdstrike maintained possession of both and refused access to anyone else.

That's the thing. The "evidence" was so obvious it looked like a setup. If you wanted to implicate the Russians, those are all the things you would
do. Are Russia the big bad guys again, or do they have the hacking skills of a 4th grader? They can't have it both ways.

What you say is meaningless, the experts all agree the speed in question is impossible. The fact you don't understand, well, the facts, is nor
surprising. They all agree the speed in question is what would be expected with a local transfer. The actual reason why it's not important is because
it's possible the speed was attained by a transfer later on down the road, not the original theft.

So are you saying that the concept of the hackers using a VPN with a local caching proxy is unreasonable?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Sure, the images can be tampered with, but due to the multiplicity of images and the way they tend to cross verify each other, it is far easier to
tamper with the server.

And Crowdstrike maintained possession of both and refused access to anyone else.

That's the thing. The "evidence" was so obvious it looked like a setup. If you wanted to implicate the Russians, those are all the things you would
do. Are Russia the big bad guys again, or do they have the hacking skills of a 4th grader? They can't have it both ways.

So, you are saying that the Mueller report is untruthful? It went into great detail about the evidence.

That's the thing. The "evidence" was so obvious it looked like a setup. If you wanted to implicate the Russians, those are all the things you would
do. Are Russia the big bad guys again, or do they have the hacking skills of a 4th grader? They can't have it both ways.

So, you are saying that the Mueller report is untruthful? It went into great detail about the evidence.

I'm not saying one way or the other. I'm just pointing out that if the Russians are that amateurish, they're not much of a threat on the cyber front.
The conclusion that they would make all these rookie mistakes and they're a serious threat don't jive.

That's the thing. The "evidence" was so obvious it looked like a setup. If you wanted to implicate the Russians, those are all the things you would
do. Are Russia the big bad guys again, or do they have the hacking skills of a 4th grader? They can't have it both ways.

So, you are saying that the Mueller report is untruthful? It went into great detail about the evidence.

General guess plus a gut feeling is all, he has been in DC tied to numerous politicians that had some scandal type issues so all in all its just a
guess that a life time in DC has lead to him violating the law since he was sort of a fixer in his early years.

General guess plus a gut feeling is all, he has been in DC tied to numerous politicians that had some scandal type issues so all in all its just a
guess that a life time in DC has lead to him violating the law since he was sort of a fixer in his early years.

Oh, well, in that case, yeah, toss him in jail for life!

Sheesh. I'm glad you aren't in any position of Trust or power over others.

That's the thing. The "evidence" was so obvious it looked like a setup. If you wanted to implicate the Russians, those are all the things you would
do. Are Russia the big bad guys again, or do they have the hacking skills of a 4th grader? They can't have it both ways.

So, you are saying that the Mueller report is untruthful? It went into great detail about the evidence.

That's the thing. The "evidence" was so obvious it looked like a setup. If you wanted to implicate the Russians, those are all the things you would
do. Are Russia the big bad guys again, or do they have the hacking skills of a 4th grader? They can't have it both ways.

So, you are saying that the Mueller report is untruthful? It went into great detail about the evidence.

Oh, who other than CS did the DNC give direct access to the DNC servers to?

I thought the DNC servers weren't hacked and they know the speed with which the files were transferred. How could you have that information if you
didn't have the server. So the Republicans who want to prove that there was mishandling of the server by the DNC or the FBI, must, therefore, have
illegally have possession of the server.

That's the thing. The "evidence" was so obvious it looked like a setup. If you wanted to implicate the Russians, those are all the things you would
do. Are Russia the big bad guys again, or do they have the hacking skills of a 4th grader? They can't have it both ways.

So, you are saying that the Mueller report is untruthful? It went into great detail about the evidence.

Ive read some very detailed fiction before.

If Mueller's report is fiction, then Barr's summary is fiction.

How's that? The media/Democrat (we need a word for this conglomerate, since they are pretty much the same these days) narrative now is that Barr's
summary isn't representative of the report, so one can be fiction and the other can be accurate.

When all ya'll do is spin lies, it gets hard to keep track of what the current narrative is.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.